ICELANDIC FISHERIES DISPUTE (Hansard, 20 November 1952)

§ The Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries (Sir Thomas Dugdale)
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement about the Icelandic fisheries dispute.
As hon. Members will recall, my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs stated on 12th November, in reply to a Question by the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) that, with the aim of reaching a solution of the fishery dispute with Iceland, it had been arranged that Icelandic experts should come to London to explain to representatives of the British trawler owners and skippers the scientific grounds on which their Government's new fishery limits had been based.
These explanations were given at a meeting on Monday last, but the representatives of the British fishing interests have expressed themselves as not being satisfied with them. At the same time they have stated publicly that they are open at any time to discuss with Iceland representatives measures of conservation required for the proper protection of the Icelandic fishery grounds.
In order not to prejudice a successful outcome of these talks such as had been hoped for, the Icelandic Government arranged for the diversion elsewhere of a trawler which was approaching Grimsby: but the Icelandic Government made it clear that their trawler owners would not be prepared to take any further step of this nature.
The talks having been unsuccessful, an Icelandic trawler, the "Jon Forseti," entered Grimsby yesterday and proceeded with the landing and sale of her catch. Thereupon, the Grimsby Trawler Officers' Guild gave immediate effect to their previously announced decision that Grimsby distant water trawlers would cease to sail from the port if and when an Icelandic trawler landed fish there.
Her Majesty's Government have maintained close contact with the Icelandic Government throughout, and much regret that their efforts to bring about a satisfactory settlement have not met with 2054 success. The Trawler Officers' Guild are acting within their legal rights in taking the action they have done, and Her Majesty's Government therefore cannot dictate to them in this matter; but my right hon. Friends the Minister of Food, the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and myself are watching the situation closely and will naturally take whatever opportunity may arise to assist in bringing about a settlement.

§ Mr. G. Brown
This is a very difficult situation and no one will wish to make it worse. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions? First, will he make it clear, in order to help to get the atmosphere right, whether the situation is as I understand it—that, in fact, the Iceland Government are not allowing the trawling by their own people of the areas closed to our trawlers; and that that seems to indicate that the areas are closed for scientific reasons? I ask him to make that perfectly clear so that everybody knows it.
Secondly, despite the difficulties, does he not think that the last part of his statement, in which he talks rather vaguely about a number of his colleagues and himself watching the situation closely, hardly attributes sufficient importance to this matter in the view of the ports which are affected, the housewives and consumers generally? While this dispute goes on, it will be a very serious business indeed.
Does he not agree that Her Majesty's Government cannot altogether get out of responsibility for this matter, however awkward and unpleasant it may be? Will he not say that the Government intend to accept their part of the responsibility to seek a settlement with the Icelandic Government, at which level the problem really exists and not at the level of the Trawler Officers' Guild at all?

§ Sir T. Dugdale
I can give that assurance to the right hon. Gentleman. In answering the first part of his question, we are informed that the Icelandic trawlers are being excluded from these grounds. I cannot go further than that, but we have that assurance. On the second question, the Government certainly realise their responsibility in this matter and are in continual touch with the Icelandic Government on the whole 2055 question, but so far we have not been able to do anything further than that which we have already achieved.

§ Mr. Woodburn
Is the Minister aware that unless the Icelandic Government realise the necessity for reciprocal action, the Scottish fishermen are likely to exercise a great deal of pressure arising out of their discontent because of their view that their fisheries are not having the protection of the Icelandic fisheries accorded to them, and that many parts round the north coast of Scotland are being invaded continually by trawlers and their fishing destroyed? The fishermen feel very strongly about it and about the Icelandic Government having taken this one-sided action.

§ Sir T. Dugdale
I am aware of that. I am certain that this dispute could be settled if we could get negotiations.

§ Mr. Law
Is it not the case that at those conversations earlier this week the Icelandic Government, although they advanced the general case for conservation, failed entirely to convince either the trawler owners or officers that their case was based on questions of conservation alone?

§ Sir T. Dugdale
Yes, Sir. I understand that to be the position.

§ Mr. Law
Might I ask one further question? The Minister referred to the proposals that had been advanced by the trawler owners on the British side. Would it be a fair picture of those proposals to describe them in these terms? Did the British side say that they would be prepared to see the nursery fishing grounds closed to vessels of all countries, and that pending a general settlement they would ask for the three-mile limit to be observed until the matter had been referred to the permanent commission shortly to be set up under the Over-Fishing Convention. Was that proposal put?

§ Sir T. Dugdale
Yes, I think that is a very clear statement of the view taken by the British fishery people. I should not like to mislead the House: the Over-Fishing Convention is not yet in existence, although we hope it will be in the early part of next year.

§ Mr. Younger
Does the Minister appreciate that since this quarrel arose out of an action by the Icelandic Government, it essentially depends upon pressure being brought on a foreign Government? Would the Minister agree that that is a job for his colleagues in the Government, whereas industrial action such as has been taken and looks likely to be taken in future really brings far greater pressure both on the British housewife and also on the other interests in the fishing industry which are already seriously affected, much more seriously so in Grimsby than in the constituency for which the right hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Law) has been speaking?

§ Sir T. Dugdale
I should like to say one word about the housewife. So far as she and the general body of consumers are concerned, we have about three weeks' time lag before any action that is being taken at Grimsby will become effective. We hope very much indeed that during those three weeks something will emerge by which agreement can be reached.

§ Mr. Boothby
Would not my right hon. Friend agree that this trouble might never have arisen but for the intolerable delay in setting up the Over-Fishing Convention, and would he take the initiative, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, in seeing that this Convention is summoned as soon as possible—he said some time next year? Until that Convention is sitting, and considers the very grave problem of over-fishing in the North Sea, we shall never get a settlement of this and many other North Sea problems.

§ Sir T. Dugdale
I entirely agree, but my hon. Friend will realise that Her Majesty's Government are not entirely responsible for this. We have been pre-sing for the setting up of this Convention, as did our predecessors, for a long time now. We are now within a close distance of the Convention being set up. There is one country at present outstanding.

§ Mrs. Braddock
There are a number of opinions in regard to this matter, and one of the opinions throughout the country is that this action is being deliberately taken by the trawler owners in order to keep as high as possible the price of fish in this country. In view of that fact and a number of other matters 2057 that are involved, will the Minister consult the Minister of Labour and ask him to keep his eye on the matter in order that, if the trawler owners refuse to do the things that will bring the fish to the housewives of this country, similar action to that which was taken by a Minister of Labour in the last Government—the prosecution of dockers for restrictive practices—will be taken in exactly the same situation against the trawler owners of Grimsby and Hull?

§ Sir T. Dugdale
As I understand the position, that is not at all the intention of the British Trawler Owners' Federation, because these restrictions on fishing at the present time are also restricting very much the larger quantities of British fish landed from Icelandic waters.

§ Lady Tweedsmuir
Will my right hon. Friend say which country has not yet ratified the Over-Fishing Convention and what prospects there are of that country ratifying it in the near future? Will he also say whether the Foreign Secretary has approached the Icelandic Government with a view to suggesting that they should wait until this Convention comes into force and lift their ban before they enter into discussions?

§ Sir T. Dugdale
The country which has not ratified is Spain, but we are hopeful that they will do so at a very early date next year. The other point is very much in the mind of the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

§ Captain Hewitson
In view of the fact that there is a possibility of a widespread refusal of the trawler skippers in two of the major ports—Grimsby and Hull—to go to sea, would the Government consider the possibility of banning Icelandic landings until such time as they have found a solution to this problem?

§ Sir T. Dugdale
All these points will be borne in mind, but I do not think that the Government have any power to take action of that sort.

§ Mr. G. Brown
Does the Minister not intend to say something rather more directly about that? He said that a ban on Icelandic landings will be borne in mind. He then said that he does not think that the Government have the power. Does that mean that if he had the power to do so, he would do it? Nothing 2058 has so far been said in these exchanges about what the Minister proposes to do to end the strike and get the landing of fish resumed, and to come to some general agreement. It would be silly to think that if we got Spain to ratify the Convention, this problem would disappear. It would not, it would still be there. The Minister has said nothing about what he proposes to do about that. His last sentence gives me a good deal of qualms. Is he thinking of a ban on Icelandic fishing if he had the power? Is that his answer?

§ Sir T. Dugdale
No. I do not wish the right hon. Gentleman to have that impression. I am quite certain that this dispute could be settled if we could get discussions opened. The difficulty up to now has been that neither the Foreign Office nor ourselves have been able to bring about a general discussion on these matters between the fishermen of the two countries.

Air Commodore Harvey
Would my right hon. Friend refute the suggestion that the action taken in Grimsby has been by the trawler owners? It has been by the skippers and mates of the vessels. Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of the crews have the impression that the Icelandic fishery protection vessels close an eye when they see their own boats fishing inshore but chase the British ones out to sea? Is he further aware that the only people who will benefit by this strike are the Icelandic trawler owners and crews, who will make a packet of money? Will my right hon. Friend do something to stop them doing so?

§ Sir T. Dugdale
These are the kind of points which are causing so much disturbance and anxiety among the fishermen. I repeat that I am certain that if we can get discussions opened we can get all these points resolved. I cannot say that there is substance in the point which my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) has made, but that again is something which has been thought by fishermen in different parts of the country.

§ Mr. Hector Hughes
Is the Minister aware that shortly after the Icelandic decision now complained of, I asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he would engage in Governmental talks with the Icelandic Government 2059 with a view to preventing the kind of impasse which has arisen? How is it that those talks did not fructuate? What has been done about the matter and how is it that the Government have allowed the present situation to develop?

§ Sir T. Dugdale
The short answer to that is that the Icelandic Government would not go far enough in these talks to make them reasonable to provide a representative exchange of views between the two sides.

§ Mr. G. R. Howard
In view of the unfortunate situation which has been caused by this dispute, would my right hon. Friend give an assurance to the House that our territorial waters will be respected, and that if any foreign nations try to fish within our limits, rigorous action will be taken against them?

§ Sir T. Dugdale
We have had no evidence of anything of that kind.

§ Mr. Lewis
In view of the obvious importance of this matter and the grave situation that is and will be confronting the housewives of this country, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will immediately consult his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to see whether we can have an immediate debate on this issue, and if possible try to arrange it for Monday next, before things go too far? I think this is a very serious matter, and as there is obvious concern among hon. Members on both sides of the House, will he look immediately into the prospect of having a debate?

§ Mr. Younger
In pursuance of what my hon. Friend has just said, and in view of the statements made by the Minister, I would ask your permission, Mr. Speaker, to move the Adjournment of the House to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, The failure of the Government to arrive at agreement with the Icelandic Government on the matter of fishing rights.

§ Mr. Speaker
The right hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House on a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, The failure of the Government to arrive at agreement with the Icelandic Government on the matter of fishing rights. I am afraid that does not come within the Standing Order, for we know that it 2060 is a continuing matter which is by no means settled. On the other hand, Ministerial responsibility is lacking in it. It takes two to make an agreement, and the Government cannot necessarily be held responsible for failure to agree with another Government. Therefore, on those grounds, I must say that it does not come within the Standing Order.

§ Mr. Younger
May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, in this matter? I appreciate that it has to be an immediate matter and not a continuing matter. Of course, it is impossible to put down in the terms of the Motion all the arguments and I understood, indeed, that it was not permissible, even if it were desirable to do so. But I think that the discussion which has already taken place has made it clear that there is in fact the immediate issue of a strike which brings this to a head at this precise moment. The matter of which we are complaining is the inaction of the Government, but it is the strike which makes it urgent at this precise moment.

§ Mr. Speaker
I can see the argument for urgency and for public importance, though on the urgency of the question it is fair to bear in mind that the Minister said that it would be three weeks or more before this would take effect.

§ Sir T. Dugdale
Three weeks so far as the housewives are concerned. Trawlers are already out there. Naturally, they will be coming in every day, or every other day, with their landings of fish, and we shall not get into any difficulty about the supplying of fish until the middle of December.

§ Mr. Speaker
The grounds which I have already given are, I think, sufficient to dispose of this Motion under Standing Order No. 9. It does not come within the terms of the Standing Order.

§ Mr. G. Brown
May I submit, on that point, that while what the Minister said about the supply of fish may be true, at this very moment fishermen, trawler hands, officers and men who work at the docks are put out already over a dispute about which they can do nothing. All the Minister has to say about it is that he and his colleagues will watch it. There is no proposal to do anything about this. It is urgent, but nobody seems to be concerned about it. May I submit, with respect, that it is urgent and very important.

§ Mr. Speaker
I see those arguments, and I have balanced and considered them; but I am bound to say that the failure of one Government to get agreement with another may be the fault of the other Government and not of one's own. This is not really a matter of responsibility, unless one would adopt the doctrine, which would be absurd, that Ministers should always agree with foreign Governments.

§ Mr. Stokes
Further to the point made by my right hon. Friend, surely the Minister himself has made the case. He has explained that there is no immediate problem, because for the next two or three weeks the trawlers will continue to come in. That means that unless the trawlers continue to go out from now onwards, there will be a shortage in two or three weeks' time which cannot be caught up. Therefore, the matter becomes a matter of immediate importance. Unless it is dealt with now, in three weeks' time there will be a shortage.

§ Mr. Speaker
Before three weeks has elapsed, the matter can easily be discussed in another way—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. This Standing Order is intended to be used only when it is justifiable to interrupt ordinary business. I cannot see what there is in this matter which allows that to be done.

§ Mr. Stokes
On a point of explanation. May I put this to you, Mr. Speaker? You have ruled that it is not immediately important because there is plenty of time in the next two or three weeks to discuss it. With great respect, may I say that if we delay at all there will be a shortage in two or three weeks' time? The urgency is now. If three days elapse and nothing happens, in three weeks there will be a three-day shortage. Surely that is the argument?

§ Mr. Boothby
May I point out that there can be no great urgency of the kind suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, because nothing has happened to change the situation. Her Majesty's Government have been in negotiation with the Icelandic Government for weeks and they are still in negotiation endeavouring to get 2062 a settlement. The fishermen have announced their intention not to go out, but that does not change the situation. They have constantly threatened not to go out, but if the situation were to change for the better, as we all hope it may do in the near future, then the fishermen would resume fishing. But to suggest that a state of urgency has arisen to this extent is going quite beyond the terms of the argument.

§ Mr. Speaker
All those are matters which have been in my mind. It is a continuing matter, and so far as Ministerial responsibility is concerned, there is nothing which brings it within the Standing Order.

§ Mr. Osborne
On a point of order. Since a number of the skippers and men involved in this dispute are my constituents, and since I put a plan before the Minister some 10 days ago for the settlement of this problem, am I not entitled to ask a question on it?

§ Mr. Speaker
That is not a point of order.

§ Mr. Paget
I wish to ask your leave, Mr. Speaker, to move the Adjournment of the House on a different ground which, in my submission, will comply with your Ruling. The urgency here seems to be, not the failure to agree with the Icelandic Government, which is a continuing matter, but the fact, which is new and urgent, that trawlers are not leaving the ports today; and that within the next week or so the result of that strike will be borne by the housewives. I would therefore ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, The failure of the Government to take action to put our trawlers to sea to catch fish for our homes. The Government have requisitioning powers which they could put into operation. They can end this strike. They have the power to do so, and in my submission it is their responsibility.

§ Mr. Bowles
While the Motion is being brought to you, Mr. Speaker, may I say—

§ Mr. Speaker
It is out of order to speak while the Motion is being brought to me.

§ Mr. Bowles
Before you give your Ruling, may I make a submission?

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 on an urgent matter of definite public importance, namely, The failure of the Government to take action to put our trawlers to sea to catch fish for our homes.

§ Mr. Bowles
On a point of order. Before you give your Ruling, may I refer to the first of the reasons which you gave for refusing to accept the last Motion? You said that a continuing failure was not definite and did not come within the Standing Order. I have a precedent for you, Mr. Speaker. During the war, I obtained the leave of Mr. Speaker Clifton Brown to move the Adjournment of the House on the continuing failure of the Government to take adequate steps to prevent a series of accidents in Transport Command. That was a definite and urgent matter of public importance—the continuing failure of the Government to act. Therefore, before you give a Ruling, I submit, with great respect, that your first reason last time was wrong.

§ Mr. Speaker
These two cases are quite distinguishable. I will now deal with this one, which refers to the failure of the Government to take action to put our trawlers to sea to catch fish for our homes. My objection to this Motion, though I must admit that it is nearer the mark, is that, as I understand it, there is no failure to put our trawlers to sea. I gather that only a certain number of trawlers have refused to go. I know no more about this matter than the House in general. If trawlers are going to sea—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Can I have the facts?

§ Sir T. Dugdale
A proportion of the long-distance trawlers from Grimsby are not going to sea as from last night but, of course, a large number of trawlers are fishing at present. I said in my statement, speaking of the action of the Trawler Officers' Guild, that they are acting within their legal rights in taking the action they have taken. Her Majesty's Government, therefore, cannot dictate to them in this matter.

§ Mr. Speaker
Therefore, it is a partial stoppage and I understand that there is no Ministerial responsibility or power to send them to sea. Is not it like interfering with a strike of some sort?

§ Mrs. Castle
Is not it the responsibility of the Government of the day to maintain the food supplies of the country? Also, is not it a fact that action was taken last night which threatens the interruption of these food supplies at a time when the difficulties of feeding the people are exceedingly acute? In view of that, does not this matter lie within the responsibility of the Government, and is not it one of urgency?

§ Mr. Paget
The Government have powers to protect food supplies as they did when they sent troops into the docks. Could not they use those powers to requisition trawlers?

§ Mrs. Braddock
I wish to ask your advice, Mr. Speaker. It is a fact that there was a discussion between two of the Icelandic experts and the Foreign Office last Monday. I want to know whether it is possible to get information about the complete breakdown of those negotiations last Monday, as they have a direct effect upon what is happening. This is a most important matter. I believe that it is of the utmost urgency.
There is present a representative of the Foreign Office. He knows that that is the position. The Icelandic experts came here specifically to discuss with the Foreign Office. The Foreign Office gave instructions to certain of the Icelandic trawlers on Friday last. That advice was carried out most explicitly by the Icelandic trawlers, following the request from the Foreign Office. No reciprocal agreement was made by the Foreign Office. This is an important matter. There is any amount of information with reference to it. There are documents and statements by both sides, and I suggest that it is of the utmost importance that this House should have that information at the earliest possible moment.

§ Mr. Speaker
I have no doubt that that is true. I have to decide whether this Motion falls within the Standing Order, and I must say that it does not. What is being urged as a ground for the Motion is the failure of the Government 2065 to take action to put our trawlers to sea. I understand now that this strike took place last night, and I do not think that the failure of ships to go to sea this morning is a matter sufficiently urgent as to come within the Standing Order.

§ Mr. Ede
The Minister made the statement, which I understand is borne out by what information we have, that when the long-distance trawlers that are now at sea return to port the effect of the decision taken by the trawler owners last night will be that the returning trawlers will be laid up and will not put to sea again. In these circumstances, it seems to be the clear duty of the Government to take the action that is open to them under Regulation 55, about which we shall hear later today, to maintain this essential branch of industry. It is clear that their failure to do it, and the mere acceptance of the action of the trawler owners as the last word, brings this matter within the terms of the Standing Order.

§ Mr. Law
Is not it most important that the facts of the matter should be beyond dispute? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has just suggested that it is owing to the action of the trawler owners that these vessels are not going to sea. It is not. It is owing to the action of the skippers and men.

§ Mr. M. MacMillan
With regard to that part of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, which says that there is no apparent Ministerial responsibility, I should like to say, with great respect and subject to correction, that under the Sea Fish Industry Act passed by the last Parliament the Government have a direct statutory obligation to maintain food supplies. They have power to direct the White Fish Authority, as their instrument, to ensure that supplies are maintained. The Government have power to give directions to the White Fish Authority and even to see that they requisition vessels to make sure that supplies are maintained. Therefore, I suggest that there is a direct responsibility on the Government at least to give directions to the Authority set up by Parliament to maintain food supplies. I hope that you will consider that point.

§ Mr. Speaker
When I was talking about Ministerial responsibility, I was 2066 dealing with the first Motion which alleged that, because the Government had failed to agree with the Icelandic Government, that brought this matter within their responsibility. I made the point there that that would be unreasonable because we cannot force people to agree with an unreasonable opponent. But on this matter there are still some doubts about the facts.
What I propose to say now is the best Ruling I can give on the subject, and I think that it is definite. I shall Rule this Motion out of order at the moment because I do not see that the threat to our food supplies is so urgent or close as to invoke the Standing Order; but I shall do so without prejudice to the matter being raised again should the situation show features which make it desirable to bring the matter urgently before the House. That is my Ruling on the matter.

§ Mr. G. Brown
Will the Minister make a further statement on this subject, perhaps on Monday, to give us a chance to know what is happening?

§ Sir T. Dugdale
I will certainly arrange to make a further statement, with your leave, Mr. Speaker, on Monday.

§ Mr. Morrison
Will the Minister convey to the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip the fact that, in view of the discussion which has taken place, with the demand for a debate, and so on, it really is not treating the House quite right that such a statement calculated to produce this kind of discussion should be made and that neither the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House nor the Government Chief Whip should be in his place? It is another act of contempt of the House.

§ Sir T. Dugdale
In answer to that, may I say that I will certainly bring the view of the right hon. Gentleman to the notice of my colleagues, but I took the very first opportunity of coming to the House today with the statement which I have made.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Unless hon. Members are rising to points of order, the whole matter is over.

§ Mr. C. S. Taylor
On a point of order. I have been sitting here and rising in an 2067 effort to ask a question, which is not a point of order, as a result of the statement of my right hon. Friend. We have been kept—all those of us who wanted to ask honest questions—

§ Mr. Speaker
That is not a point of order.

§ Mr. Taylor
With great respect, some of us wanted to ask questions arising out of the statement of my right hon. Friend, and we waited until a number of points of order were raised—some of them fictitious points of order.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order.

§ Mr. Lewis
On a point of order. I distinctly heard the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor) make two statements—one, by inference, that questions put to you were not honest questions, and secondly, the further statement to the effect that there were fictitious points of order and questions. The question that I should like to ask is whether that is not a reflection on the capabilities of Mr. Speaker and on the Chair, and may I further ask whether that statement should not be withdrawn?

§ Mr. Speaker
I think it is undesirable to make accusations of that character. As regards reflections upon myself, I do not think any was intended.

Hon. Members
Withdraw.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Member must not rise when I am on my feet. As regards any reflection on myself, I think I can stand that.

§ Mr. Osborne
On a point of order. May I have your guidance in this matter, Mr. Speaker? My constituents are more affected by this decision than those of any other constituency, and I wish to ask you by what method their point of view can be put to you, when hon. Members have been waiting here for three-quarters of an hour and constantly rising, and yet have not been called?

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Member was merely unfortunate. There is no point of order in that.